List comments on a todo or idea

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states comments are returned in chronological order, but does not disclose pagination behavior (though a limit parameter exists), rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, more detail would be expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, but could add important details without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does not describe the structure of returned comments. It also fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining parameters. The context is incomplete for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only mentions that agent_id is required, without explaining the purpose or format of any parameters. The target_kind, target_id, and limit parameters are not described, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns comments on a specific Boardroom todo or idea, in chronological order. It names the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'comment_on' for creating comments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only mentions that agent_id is required, providing no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.